From Stark
A proposed constitutional amendment to curb corporate political activities would not apply to labor unions.
This post from Tuesday, Dec. 13 noted that U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen has signed on to the amendment, prompting some discussion in this space about the scope of the amendment.
I asked Bryan Thomas, a Larsen spokesman, for clarification, and he replied in an email that the proposed amendment applies to corporations only. Here is the text:
`Section 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.
`Section 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.
`Section 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.
`Section 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.’.
In Section 1, the line “other private entitites established… to promote business interests” would strip rights from pro-business advocacy groups but not anti-business advocacy groups.
Section 3′s prohibition on “expenditures in any election” could also be construed to prevent media like the Bellingham Herald from talking about elections or ballot measures, unless they figure out how to print newspapers for free.
This is really a horrific proposal. I’m thankful it has zero chance of getting anywhere.
Scott… they language specifically cited “fredom of the press”, so it would not classify the Bellingham Herald or other media that way, although very few media sources are truly fair and balanced.
Also, Scott, I have never heard of any anti-business groups.
The part I don’t like is “Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending”. Why bother with that? When tycoon William Randolph Hearst tried to get elected as mayor, then governor of New York, people knew it was his personal money, and they didn’t choose to elect him because they didn’t like him. Money helps elections, but it is not some foolproof guarantee. As long as there is disclosure about the source of money, then people can decide.
How bout this as an amendment Rick:
No special interest money, none, from corporations, for profit or not, unions, etc, we could call it the end the career politicians amendment!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Hey Rick why don’t you set the lead by giving some refunds:
Northrop Grumman $11,000 $0 $11,000
Berkshire Hathaway $10,500 $500 $10,000
AmeriPAC: The Fund for a Greater America $10,000 $0 $10,000
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $10,000 $0 $10,000
New Democrat Coalition $10,000 $0 $10,000
Transportation Unions $35,500 $0 $35,500
Sea Transport $32,000 $1,000 $31,000
Lobbyists $30,092 $29,092 $1,000….
PAC Contributions $373,557….
https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00009759&cycle=2012
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
The best and most fair way to curb unions is to stop the state from being the dues collector for public sector unions and allow private companies to do the same. Let the unions collect their own dues, directly from the members.
Our hero statesman representative, Rick Larsen, has just sponsored a Constitutional Amendment that would be , “A proposed constitutional amendment to curb corporate political activities would not apply to labor unions.”
As I wrote elsewhere, why not just propose a repeal of the First Amendment?
It would be far more simple, but it wouldn’t go anywhere, either.
I would prefer that Representative Larsen would do his Constitutionally-mandated job.
Richard, the Section 2 reference to “freedom of the press” is a restriction on future regulation passed by “Congress and the States.” The Section 3 prohibition on “expenditures in any election” is a direct constitutional prohibition, which would take effect without any additional regulations passed by any legislature. Taking the plain language of the proposal, Section 2 does not limit Section 3 in the least.